[Updated]Geforce 8950GX2/8900GTX/8900GTS/8900GT/8900GS Details + 8600/8300 Series

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metroid

I just was expecting Nvidia would make front to ATI and face it. What I see is that they are standing back. Don't you see it? Check both numbers again and see what both are offering to its customers, so doing that you will see what is the black sheep. Yeah right got it.

---

Yeah, because higher numbers automatically translate to higher performance. P4 anyone? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HamidFULL

Exactly! also 8900GS is 80nm and have very better OC ability + so many cooler than 8800GTS

---

That's not necessarily correct. It depends on how mature the technology is for them when they put it out. Although, at this time, it would seem that 80nm should be more than mature. And that is exactly what we are hoping for :). I can't wait for cheap 8900gs's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziddey

That's not necessarily correct. It depends on how mature the technology is for them when they put it out. Although, at this time, it would seem that 80nm should be more than mature. And that is exactly what we are hoping for :). I can't wait for cheap 8900gs's

---

Exactly....a smaller process doesn't mean better OCing, anybody remember 110nm X800XL? Stock core = 400, great OC was 450 on air....didn't have much headroom past that on any cooling :-/

I will buy one of the new top line cards ONLY if the power consumption and thus heat output is more acceptable compared to current G80.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

Exactly....a smaller process doesn't mean better OCing, anybody remember 110nm X800XL? Stock core = 400, great OC was 450 on air....didn't have much headroom past that on any cooling :-/

---

Yeah, but R430 @ 110nm was not intended to boost some great clock speeds, rather affordable performance was the goal.

There's a crucial difference right here between the G80 @ 80nm and R430 @ 110nm - the high-end product back then (X850XTX) was based on a totally different core (R480) on a totally different manufacturing process (130nm Low-K). This time, again only if the rumors in the OP is true, this 89GS will share the very same core and manufacturing process as the top-end SKU - let's call the core G80nm. :D As you can see, affordable performance is NOT the intention here, as 89GTX's stated MSRP is a quite notable 2x X800XL's original MSRP of $300. ;)

Still die shrinks aren't always "lucky", but the R430 parallel just doesn't make any sense to be honest.

~ Kris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krille

At the end of the day, it'll probably end up at whether you wanna pay $50 more for a lower clocked, hotter-running core (surely you agree this makes sense), with 37.5% less memory ironically providing 25% extra bandwidth.

---

I believe it will be the other way around. According to those charts the 8900GS 512mb will come in at $299. That is the current price of the 8800GTS 320mb and it isn't staying there. I would venture to say that its 8900GS that will cost you $50 more at the time of release. Now you are paying an extra $50 for a 256-bit memory interface (but yes, more total memory) and potentially higher clocks. I say that because we will just have to see what happens. This is all just educated speculation...is there a term for that?

to me, the potential of overclocking the 8800GS is very good. without looking at how the actual cards look like, and just looking at the chart on the first page. the 8800GT has 96 shaders, 512mb, 256bit w/ 600/1800 clocks and its $100 more than the 8800GS 512mb. so unless the cards have a different layouts, it would be safe to say that you can get a 8800GS 512 and overclock it to 8800GT speeds or higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulburner

I believe it will be the other way around. According to those charts the 8900GS 512mb will come in at $299. That is the current price of the 8800GTS 320mb and it isn't staying there. I would venture to say that its 8900GS that will cost you $50 more at the time of release. Now you are paying an extra $50 for a 256-bit memory interface (but yes, more total memory) and potentially higher clocks. I say that because we will just have to see what happens. This is all just educated speculation...is there a term for that?

---

Educated guess? Guesstimate? Speculation per se is "guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence" according to princeton. :)

Anyway, according to Inq (the text) the information in the table is older. But if it goes your way, I can easily see you wouldn't want to pay $50 more for something potentially less.

~ Kris

i feel refreshes are more a trait of the dx9 generation, when video chipset makers had to make new cards for the same api cause vista wasnt out yet. i bet nvidia will just not do anything until the geforce 9 series comes out with dx 10.1 support. just like before dx9. well, at least iirc. i mean, there was no real geforce 4 refresh cards, they just went straight to geforce fx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i feel refreshes are more a trait of the dx9 generation, when video chipset makers had to make new cards for the same api cause vista wasnt out yet. i bet nvidia will just not do anything until the geforce 9 series comes out with dx 10.1 support. just like before dx9. well, at least iirc. i mean, there was no real geforce 4 refresh cards, they just went straight to geforce fx.

---

That way everything would just be so much easier... I wish. Doubt it though, as refreshes are excellent opportunities to make some extra buck (for them).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aiya

to me, the potential of overclocking the 8800GS is very good. without looking at how the actual cards look like, and just looking at the chart on the first page. the 8800GT has 96 shaders, 512mb, 256bit w/ 600/1800 clocks and its $100 more than the 8800GS 512mb. so unless the cards have a different layouts, it would be safe to say that you can get a 8800GS 512 and overclock it to 8800GT speeds or higher.

---

thats exactly what i was just thinking, and i definetly hope its true. the 512mb or vram i think is what will make the difference to most people so even if the 89GS is slightly slower than the 88GTS, i will most likely still get the 89GS. especially if it is less hot and quieter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziddey

That's not necessarily correct. It depends on how mature the technology is for them when they put it out. Although, at this time, it would seem that 80nm should be more than mature. And that is exactly what we are hoping for :). I can't wait for cheap 8900gs's

---

And a little bird told me that 80nm G8x cards will OC more and consume less power. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i feel refreshes are more a trait of the dx9 generation, when video chipset makers had to make new cards for the same api cause vista wasnt out yet. i bet nvidia will just not do anything until the geforce 9 series comes out with dx 10.1 support. just like before dx9. well, at least iirc. i mean, there was no real geforce 4 refresh cards, they just went straight to geforce fx.

---

wow, that was eerily accurate. except the dx10.1 support isnt confirmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

And a little bird told me that 80nm G8x cards will OC more and consume less power. :D

---

you dont need a little bird to know that,
it is kind of a given that the 80nm version on average will clock higher and will use less energy but will the diffrence be substantial thats the question.

and btw Little birdies have been wrong in the past so id just shoot the damn bird.

more oc , less heat.Lets just wait for the products to show up :stick:

I couldn't tell by the charts, but when are these coming out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deeznuts

I couldn't tell by the charts, but when are these coming out?

---

2-3 Month Later